Peace Science Made Accessible, Understandable, and Useful.

Abandoning the INF Treaty Makes the World Less Secure

Context:

The United States has announced their withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Abandoning the treaty would make the world, especially Europe, less secure and mark another Cold-War-style arms race.

In the News:

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty was signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. The treaty bans missiles with a range between 310 and 3420 miles and only applies to the U.S. and Russia and to land-based missles. Both countries can still have sea-based and air-launched missiles with this range.

“On October 20, 2018, President Trump announced at a campaign rally that the U.S. would pull out of the treaty. President Trump has said that Russia is violating the treaty. He has also complained that China is not bound by the treaty. U.S. officials are concerned about a Chinese arms build-up in the Pacific and want the option to counter it with their own intermediate-range missiles. The rationale seems to be that the U.S. is at a disadvantage by complying with the treaty when Russia is not and China does not have to.”

Russia is almost certainly violating the treaty. “In 2017, the U.S. said that Russia had deployed a cruise missile that violated the terms of the treaty. In earlier years, the Obama Administration accused Russia of developing and testing a missile that violated the treaty. The consistent message across administrations and over the course of several years suggests the U.S. has good evidence of the violation.”

“If the treaty no longer exists, then Russia can build and deploy intermediate range missiles without any limits. Missiles in the banned range are not a threat to the United States, but they do threaten U.S. Allies in Europe. The treaty provided a great deal of security to European partners. Without it, they are more vulnerable. President Trump has also said that the U.S. will begin building intermediate-range missiles if Russia and China do not agree to a deal. Congress would need to fund such a program, and it is not clear how realistic that scenario is. In Europe, Allies would need to agree to host the missiles on their territory. There could be stiff opposition in Europe to hosting U.S. intermediate-range missiles. Even so, this withdrawal raises fears of a Cold-War-style arms race—one we ended more than 30 years ago. The U.S. is already working on sea-based and air-launched missiles that don’t violate the treaty and that counter Russian capability. And, the U.S. could urge European Allies to join the diplomatic push to get Russia to modify it’s missile to a treaty-compliant range. In the end, if Russia is determined to cheat, there may be no saving this treaty. But, the U.S. has little to gain from being the first to withdraw. It will embolden Russia, threaten the security of our Allies, and it will not make the U.S. any safer.”

Insight from Peace Science:

Nuclear weapons are “social objects” that gain their value from the social context we create, therefore the value attached to them is subject to change.

Nuclear abolition movements must include the devaluation of nuclear weapons if political elites are to be expected to voluntarily rid themselves of them.

To devalue nuclear weapons we must shift to de-nuclearized conceptions of national identity and security, decrease the power and prestige associated with their possession, and challenge arguments about the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence

Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZs) advance the movement against nuclear weapons by requiring commitments from countries to never use, test, or store their weapons within the NWFZ region.

The unique characteristics, culture, and political environment specific to each NWFZ simplifies nuclear nonproliferation because countries within a NWFZ are better able to address regional nuclear threats—whether in the form of a neighboring country looking to develop nuclear weapons or in the case of an outside nuclear-armed state interested in testing or stationing its weapons within the region.

NWFZs have been successful in creating a “nuclear taboo” that has changed international opinion and norms attributed to the role, legitimacy, and use of nuclear weapons.

Current and future NWFZs can strengthen their treaties by making it mandatory for their members to sign and ratify the TPNW; specifically prohibiting external nuclear-armed countries from using, testing, researching, or storing nuclear weapons within their NWFZ; and including or strengthening provisions requiring victim assistance and/or environmental rehabilitation from past nuclear weapon users in the region.

02

03

Social

Testimonials

Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D.

The field of peace science has long suffered from a needless disconnect between current scholarship and relevant practice. The Peace Science Digest serves as a vital bridge. By regularly communicating cutting-edge peace research to a general audience, this publication promises to advance contemporary practice of peace and nonviolent action. I don’t know of any other outlet that has developed such an efficient forum for distilling the key insights from the latest scholarly innovations for anyone who wants to know more about this crucial subject. I won’t miss an issue.

-Erica Chenoweth: Professor, Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

David Cortright, Ph.D.

The Peace Science Digest is a valuable tool for translating scholarly research into practical conclusions in support of evidence-based approaches to preventing armed conflict.

-David Cortright: Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Ambassador John W. McDonald, ret.

This Magazine is where the academic field and the practitioners meet. It is the ideal source for the Talkers, the Writers and the Doers who need to inform and educate themselves about the fast growing field of Peace Science for War Prevention Initiatives!

Kelly Cambell

As a longtime peace activist, I’ve grown weary of the mainstream perception that peace is for dreamers. That’s why the Peace Science Digest is such as useful tool; it gives me easy access to the data and the science to make the case for peacebuilding and war prevention as both practical and possible. This is a wonderful new resource for all who seek peaceful solutions in the real world.

Michael Nagler

We must welcome the expansion of peace awareness into any and every area of our lives, in most of which it must supplant the domination of war and violence long established there. The long-overdue and much appreciated Digest is filling an important niche in that peace invasion. No longer will anyone be able to deny that peace is a science that can be studied and practiced.

-Michael Nagler: Founder and President, Metta Center for Nonviolence

Aubrey Fox

The Peace Science Digest is the right approach to an ever-present challenge: how do you get cutting-edge peace research that is often hidden in hard-to-access academic journals into the hands of a broader audience? With its attractive on-line format, easy to digest graphics and useful short summaries, the Peace Science Digest is a critically important tool for anyone who cares about peace as well as a delight to read.

Joseph Bock, Ph.D.

How many times are we asked about the effectiveness of alternatives to violent conflict? Reading Peace Science Digest offers a quick read on some of the best research focused on that important question. It offers talking points and summarizes practical implications. Readers are provided with clear, accessible explanations of theories and key concepts. It is a valuable resource for policy-makers, activists and scholars. It is a major step in filling the gap between research findings and application.

-Joseph Bock: International Conflict Management Program Associate Professor of International Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Eric Stoner

The distillation of the latest academic studies offered by the Peace Science Digest is not only an invaluable time-saving resource for scholars and policymakers concerned with preventing the next war, but for journalists and organizers on the front lines, who can put their findings to good use as they struggle to hold the powerful accountable and to build a more just and peaceful world.

-Eric Stoner: Co-founder and Editor, Waging Nonviolence

Mark Freeman

The Peace Science Digest is a major contribution to the peace and security field. It makes complex issues more understandable, enabling professional outfits like ours to be more effective in our global work. The Digest underscores that preventing war is about more than good intentions or power; it is also about transferable knowledge and science.

Maria J. Stephan, Ph.D.

The Digest is smartly organized, engaging, and provides a nice synthesis of key research on conflict, war, and peace with practical and policy relevance. The journal’s emphasis on “contemporary relevance”, “talking points” and “practical implications” is a breath of fresh air for those of us trying to bridge the academic-policy-practitioner divides. Highly recommended reading.

-Maria J. Stephan: Senior Advisor, United States Institute of Peace

David Swanson

Peace Science Digest is an invaluable tool for advocates for peace, as much as for educators. In it one quickly finds the talking points needed to persuade others, and the research to back those points up.